Mumbai Court November 1997 Judgments

J.N. Marshall Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT57Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Following from the physical verification by the Central Excise staff of the stock in the factory of M/s. J.N. Marshal Ltd., M/s. Spirax Marshal Ltd. and M/s. Cambridge Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., which were stated to have common Central Excise licences, and discovered shortages and excesses in the premises of the first company. Notice was issued to it proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 27,69,59,000/- (approximately) on goods alleged to have been manufactured and clandestinely removed during the period 1st January, 1986 to 31st March, 1990, of Rs. 1,12,77,000/- on shortages in the finished goods and Rs. 57.48 lacs on excesses between 1st June, 1987 and 31st March, 1990. After considering the replies and hearing the assessees the Collector passed the order impugned in the appeal. In that order, he has held the demand on account of clandestine removal to be untenable and dropped it. He has accepted the contention of the assessee that the excess of production as revealed in the RG 1 ...

Pranav Construction Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and sale of flats. On 9th March, 1992, there was a search of the assessee's registered office and premises of some of the partners. Certain materials were seized during the search. One of them was a diary No. 9. At p. 12 of the diary certain notings were found.These notings are as under :05 80,000 12-2-1992 86,250 Recd.06 80,500 5-2-1992 86,250 Recd.07 80,500 12-2-1992 86,250 Recd.18/018 1,31,600)19/019 80,500) 3,95,850 Recd. 8/1220 1,26,700 1,35,750 Recd. 9/209/009 1,66,000 Recd. + 20,000 Bal. --------------- ----------------- 5,80,300 11,56,350 The partner of the assessee-firm by name Jagdish N. Lodaria, was asked to explain the notings in the course of the statement recorded from him under s. 132(4) of the Act. The relevant questions and the answers are as below : "Q. No. 5 - I now show you p. 12 of serial No. 9, a rough paid seized from your office. Please explain the cash receipts received in the month ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orkay Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1998]230ITR108(Bom)

Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of s. 104 of the IT Act, 1961, were not applicable to the assessee-company for the asst. yr. 1976-77 ?'2. The facts of the case relevant for deciding the controversy in this reference, briefly stated, are as follows : Orkay Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. amalgamated with the assessee-company w.e.f. 1st July, 1975. The amalgamation was approved by this Court by order dt. 16th October, 1975, subject to the terms of the said order and the scheme of amalgamation attached thereto. As a result, Orkay Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. merged with the assessee-company w.e.f. 1st July, 1975. However, despite the amalgamation of Orkay Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. with the assessee-company w.e...

Sanjay Sales Corporation Vs. Sunderbai W/O Shrichand Daga and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR776; 1998(2)BomCR775

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar J. 1. This is a revision application against the order dated 1-2-1994 passed in R.C.S. 114/94 by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division. Nagpur, thereby, allowing the application under section 10 filed by the non-applicants herein. 2. The applicant herein filed a Civil Suit No. 293/92 against the non-applicants on the ground of harassment caused by the non-applicants with the intention to compel the applicant to vacate the leased premises. The leased premises comprised of 3 rooms owned by the non-applicants and the lease commenced from the year 1972. The relief sought by the applicant in the said suit was that of the permanent injunction to restrain the non-applicants from disturbing the lawful possession of the applicant over the leased premises and also to restrain the non-applicants from disturbing the pipe lines and the drain. Some times in the year 1992, the non applicant No. 3 herein namely Nagpur Improvement Trust, acquired a portion of the leased pr...

Joseph Alfonso Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR577

ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. The appellant/accused in Sessions Case No. 26/91, is facing charge of rape as also unlawful confinement respectively punishable under sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident happened at about 8 a.m. on 10th July, 1990. The appellant/accused staying nearby the house of the prosecutrix, Sarojani, came there brushing his teeth, asking for some water apparently to gargle. The girl was sitting outside the house and in response to the request for water, asked the appellant to go inside the house and help himself. The appellant went inside and came back taking her forcibly inside the house closed the front door and committed the offence of rape.2. About the age no doubt, so far as the appellant is concerned, before the trial Court the evidence as expected was not led. The material sought to be relied upon by the prosecution should have been collected and presented before the Court with notice thereof being given to the appellant well in time. What h...

Pranav Construction Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)145

ORDERR. V. EASWAR, J.M. :The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and sale of flats. On 9th March, 1992, there was a search of the assessees registered office and premises of some of the partners. Certain materials were seized during the search. One of them was a diary No. 9. At p. 12 of the diary certain notings were found. These notings are as under :ChC 0580,00012-2-199286,250 Recd.0680,5005-2-199286,250 Recd.0780,50012-2-199286,250 Recd.18/0181,31,600) 19/01980,500) 3,95,850 Recd. 8/12201,26,700 1,35,750 Recd. 9/209/009 1,66,000 Recd. + 20,000 Bal. 5,80,300 11,56,350 + 20,000 11,76,350The partner of the assessee-firm by name Jagdish N. Lodaria, was asked to explain the notings in the course of the statement recorded from him under s. 132(4) of the Act. The relevant questions and the answers are as below :'Q. No. 5 - I now show you p. 12 of serial No. 9, a rough paid seized from your office. Please explain the cash receipts received in the month of ...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(75)LC413Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed with reference to the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 10.3.1989.2. Learned Counsel submitted that they have also filed a miscellaneous application for amendment of the grounds of appeal and in this connection drew attention to the reasons given therein. Elaborating the same he said that after the new tariff was introduced in 1986, Government of India introduced an Act known as Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption)Act, 1986, which was passed and this had the effect of continuing the effective rate of duty in respect of the tariff items covered by the Notification 75/84 as per notification 78/86.3. In this Notification, Chapter 27 was mentioned in the opening paragraph. But subsequently a Notification was issued viz. 359/86 dated 27.6.1986 substituting Chapter 22 or 27 or 29 for the words "in Chapter 22 or 27". They have filed the application because the statutory provisions contained in the aforesaid Act and the e...

Nircon Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Zohrabai FakhruddIn and Oth ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR246; 1998(1)BomCR153

ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs making a number of prayers. A declaration is sought to the effect that there is a valid and subsisting agreement for sale and development between the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 to-19 and 21 in terms of the document at Exhibit-Q and that the same is binding on the said defendants. A declaration is also sought to the effect that the agreement to lease dated 31-1-96 alleged to have been executed by the MMRDA in favour of defendant No. 22 and he agreement dated 17-2-1997 alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 22 in favour of defendant No. 23 are null and void and have no legal effect. It is further prayed that this Court be pleased to cancel the aforesaid agreement to lease dated 31-1-97 and the agreement dated 17-2-1997. A further declaration is sought to the effect that the 140 documents as per particulars set out in Exhibit-88 executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 14 in favour of defendant No. 22 are null and v...

M/S. Savita Sadi Centre and Others Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1998Bom231; 1998(1)ALLMR78; 1998(2)BomCR532

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit. Heard by consent of the advocates for the parties.2. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The facts in brief are that, the non-applicant had filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 26,556.05 ps. from the applicant herein. The suit was disposed of by a decree dated 2-5-1987. It is the case of the non-applicant that, on account of the bona fide mistake on the part of the non-applicant's advocate in giving advice to prefer the appeal before the High Court instead of before the District Court, the appeal was originally filed before this Court and consequently there was delay in filing appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The lower Court, on going through the records, has held that, there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the non-appiicant's advocate in giving the said advice and placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, reported in 19...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Western India Pharmaceutical Services P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1998]230ITR96(Bom)

Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee can be said to be mainly engaged in the business of processing of goods within the meaning of the definition of an industrial company under s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1976 ?' 2. The only business of the assessee in this case is printing manufacturers' names on pharmaceutical capsules. The question is whether the above activity amounts to processing of goods within the meaning of the definition of 'industrial company' as contained in s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1976. The Tribunal has held that the activity of printing manufacturers' names on pharmaceutical capsules amounts to processing of goods and the company engaged in the above activity can be termed an 'industrial company' within the meaning of s. 2 of the Finance Act. 3. We ...